Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s acquittal and restored Chhaakki Lal’s murder conviction, finding that the sole eyewitness’s credible account was corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence. Minor discrepancies, explained reporting delay and investigative lapses did not justify discarding the prosecution case on this record. The trial court’s death sentence was replaced with life imprisonment in view of the circumstances and passage of time. The appeal against the deceased co-accused had abated. The surviving accused was directed to surrender within a week.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly rejected the sole eyewitness and reversed the murder convictions.
- Whether reporting delay, discrepancies in weapon description and forensic-submission delay undermined the prosecution evidence.
- Whether interference with acquittal was warranted and what sentence should follow for the surviving accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, 1872No particular number of witnesses was necessary to prove a fact. A conviction could rest on a wholly reliable sole witness; quality, credibility and corroboration where doubt existed were material. (¶ 23)
Held
- The elderly eyewitness’s account had to be assessed in the context of the shock of losing close relatives. Minor variations and omissions that did not undermine the core account were insufficient to reject otherwise credible testimony; the Court also gave weight to the trial court’s assessment of demeanour. (¶¶ 14, 18–23)
- An FIR need not contain every detail. The omissions relied on did not destroy the basic prosecution account, and the circumstances explained why the witness did not immediately travel to the police station. The delay in formal registration was not fatal on this record. (¶¶ 19, 24–25)
- The law permits reliance on a wholly reliable solitary eyewitness. Here the Court found corroboration in the scene evidence, medical evidence and ballistic opinion, rather than treating the witness’s relationship to the victims as a ground for automatic rejection. (¶¶ 18, 22–23, 27, 35)
- The references to “315 bore” and “0.315 bore” were treated as a mistaken description of the same recovered weapon, not proof of substitution. The Court rejected the suggested alternative-assailant and planted-weapon theory in light of the record. (¶¶ 15–16, 28–32)
- The delay in sending the recovered weapons for forensic examination was an investigative lapse. It did not warrant discarding the otherwise credible and cogent prosecution case in the circumstances found. (¶ 33–35)
- Although appellate interference with acquittal is ordinarily restrained, the High Court’s treatment of credible testimony and immaterial contradictions disclosed serious infirmity and miscarriage of justice. Reappraisal and restoration of conviction were therefore warranted. (¶ 35–36)
- The appeal against the deceased co-accused had abated. For Chhaakki Lal, the Court restored the section 302 conviction but imposed life imprisonment rather than death, considering the circumstances and elapsed time. Surrender was directed within a week, failing which he was to be taken into custody. (¶¶ 2, 37–38)
Result
Appeals allowed as to the surviving accused; murder conviction restored with life imprisonment replacing death. Surrender within a week directed; proceedings against the deceased co-accused remained abated.